3 ms·

The filibuster continues to exist each new day because a simple majority of senators continue to want it to exist. Don’t let that majority off the hook for anyt

The filibuster continues to exist each new day because a simple majority of senators continue to want it to exist. Don’t let that majority off the hook for anything by pointing to a rule they could remove at will.

brightball 4y ago
IMO doing anything at the federal level should require a supermajority anyway. The country shouldn’t swing back and forth due to a simple majority. If a supermajority can’t agree, leave it to states. We would all be a lot better off.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  There’s already a de facto supermajority requirement in that you need the senate, which represents states, and the house, which represents people. Also, it turns out that when the legislature doesn’t act, because it was deliberately hobbled by its designers, you end up with an ultra powerful executive rather than things being left to the states. It would be better if more Americans recognized the flaws in the design of our system of government instead of quasi-worshipping the Founding Fathers and insisting that any problems are because we are unworthy of their great design.
  - brightball 4y ago
    That’s a valid point. IMO the executive should have been more limited.
  - bink 4y ago
    > hobbled by its designers Minor quibble, but the filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. And it was most recently modified in 1975.
    - bradleyjg 4y ago
      The legislature was split in two because it was considered the most dangerous branch. Or at least that’s one of the explanations they gave when arguing for its ratification.
- roywiggins 4y ago
  A party gaining the majority but being unable to functionally govern is awful for democratic legitimacy. Why vote when even if your party wins an election, you don't get your preferred policy implemented, even partially? And beyond that, it lets party politicians who don't really want to have to take hard votes hide behind the procedural hurdles.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    Indeed. That results in the political system being bypassed, and so critical progress in America was made by the judiciary, which doesn't have popular support and is vulnerable to court-stacking and now, it appears, bribery.

brightball 4y ago

IMO doing anything at the federal level should require a supermajority anyway. The country shouldn’t swing back and forth due to a simple majority. If a supermajority can’t agree, leave it to states. We would all be a lot better off.

bradleyjg 4y ago
There’s already a de facto supermajority requirement in that you need the senate, which represents states, and the house, which represents people. Also, it turns out that when the legislature doesn’t act, because it was deliberately hobbled by its designers, you end up with an ultra powerful executive rather than things being left to the states. It would be better if more Americans recognized the flaws in the design of our system of government instead of quasi-worshipping the Founding Fathers and insisting that any problems are because we are unworthy of their great design.
- brightball 4y ago
  That’s a valid point. IMO the executive should have been more limited.
- bink 4y ago
  > hobbled by its designers Minor quibble, but the filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. And it was most recently modified in 1975.
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    The legislature was split in two because it was considered the most dangerous branch. Or at least that’s one of the explanations they gave when arguing for its ratification.
roywiggins 4y ago
A party gaining the majority but being unable to functionally govern is awful for democratic legitimacy. Why vote when even if your party wins an election, you don't get your preferred policy implemented, even partially? And beyond that, it lets party politicians who don't really want to have to take hard votes hide behind the procedural hurdles.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Indeed. That results in the political system being bypassed, and so critical progress in America was made by the judiciary, which doesn't have popular support and is vulnerable to court-stacking and now, it appears, bribery.